NO TO SHUMLIN

[Henry]

The following Editorial, written by Emerson Lynn appeared in the February 17, 2010 Edition Of The St. Albans Messenger

Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin Tuesday gave Vermonters the evidence they need to rule him unqualified to be governor of the state of Vermont. His self-centered political agenda grinds in directions contrary to the debate necessary to improve the state's energy portfolio and the state's economy.

Mr. Shumlin plans to push through a vote on the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant next week, and he is doing so for pure political advantage. The longer the wait, the better the chance that Vermont Yankee identifies and stops the leak of tritium. That would subtract from the momentum those who oppose the plant feel they now have.

A week or so ago, Mr. Shumlin said more information was needed before the Senate could feel justified in asking for a vote. Has more information been gathered? No. Mr. Shumlin's move is political theater, nothing more. Even his colleagues recognize it as a political stunt, the sort of grandstanding more common to Congress.

And the irony is striking, on the same day Mr. Shumlin plays his game, President Obama announces a $8.3 billion loan guarantee to help build two nuclear reactors in Georgia. The president gave three reasons for the guarantee: to help cut greenhouse emissions, to create energy jobs , and to develop a low carbon economy.

If Vermont were to follow Mr. Shumlin's lead, we would probably increase the amount of emissions created, we would cut the number of energy jobs, and we would decidedly raise the cost of doing business in Vermont.

Mr. Shumlin could not be more out of touch with the state's needs.

He also plays fast and loose with the truth. Consider his recent comment that Vermont Yankee's 640 employees should have been prepared for the plant's demise since it was not designed to last beyond 2012. That's complete nonsense. The plant was purchased by Entergy in 2002 and the company has invested roughly $300 million in the plant since. As with most high-stakes manufacturing concerns, investment is continual. Mr. Shumlin continues to portray the plant as antiquated and other legislative counterparts characterize nuclear power as akin to the "buggy whip."

That's interesting since the president of their party is going 180 degrees in the opposite direction, as is China, France, etc.

There is also the issue of jobs, and cost. Mr. Shumlin " says Vermont can replace the 640 Vermont Yankee jobs with jobs developing alternative energy.  Again, he is not telling the truth. Not close. Think about it. The average compensation, including benefits, at Vermont Yankee is in excess of $100,000. The average wage in renewables is about half.

And the number of jobs in renewables pales in comparison to those in nuclear. Duke Energy, for example, produces about 35,000 megawatts of energy, and has nuclear, coal, gas, hydro, wind and solar. It knows all facets of the business. The company, for example, reports that there is about a 6-1 ratio between the jobs required to operate a nuclear plant versus the jobs required to operate a wind plant - assuming the same energy output.

The types of jobs in nuclear versus renewables are also radically different in terms of educational requirements. Wiping off a solar panel doesn't require the same sort of skills necessary to run a nuclear power plant.

But renewables in Vermont do outpace nuclear power in one key respect: price. The price Vermont utilities are forced to pay as "feed-in-tariff" fees established by the Vermont Legislature is 21 cents per kilowatt hour for wind [for plants generating less than 100- kilowatts] and 24 cents per kilowatt hour for solar. Currently, we're paying 4.2 cents a kilowatt hour for what we get from Vermont Yankee.

The Legislature, with the imprimatur of Mr. Shumlin, also mandates that the state's utilities will need to address their additional power needs through renewables beginning in 2012. If Vermont Yankee is not part of the mix, and if our baseload needs increase, then Vermonters can expect to see a hefty increase in their utility bills. That will also affect businesses - that group that employs Vermonters.

Thus, in no uncertain terms, Mr. Shumlin's political aspirations would end up costing Vermonters more money and more jobs, if his lead were followed.

House Speaker Shap Smith has already said he sees no reason for the issue to be brought up for a vote in the House if the Senate affirms Mr. Shumlin's need for the spotlight. Thankfully. At least Mr. Smith is more open mind and less political than his counterpart in the Senate.

But for Vermonters interested in who will lead them beginning next January, Mr. Shumlin offers us no leadership, more politics, fewer jobs, and a higher priced, less environmentally friendly energy portfolio.

by Emerson Lynn

[j_gluck]

Here is a more reasoned opinion column from the Times-Argus that puts the focus where it should be - on Vermont Yankee.

Yankee's future

For the Vermont Senate to go on record next week against a license extension for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is for it to state the obvious: As things now stand, there is no way the state of Vermont could allow continued operation of the troubled plant.

That is why 19 senators, including three of the seven Republicans, said they would vote no on a license extension. Problems at the plant are numerous, and the owner of the plant has failed to show that it can be trusted.

The question is why vote next week. There are two answers, both of them plausible.

In announcing the vote, Sen. Peter Shumlin said it was important to clarify the future for Vermont utilities and other businesses. As long as uncertainty surrounds the future of Vermont Yankee, then the path toward energy choices beyond Yankee remains clouded. If the Senate votes no on a license extension, then Yankee cannot proceed, unless the Senate changes its mind and votes yes, unless the House also votes yes, and unless the Public Service Board grants its approval.

The utilities are already looking toward a future where Vermont Yankee may no longer be a source of power. Perhaps it was coincidental, but the same day Shumlin was announcing the upcoming vote on Yankee's license, Vermont's major utilities were announcing contracts to buy power from several wind and hydro projects. The total announced on Tuesday would not equal the amount received from Vermont Yankee, but the projects show the new direction that power production is going.

For example, Central Vermont Public Service plans to buy 30.3 percent of the output of a new 99-megawatt wind project in New Hampshire. Energy planners may be wondering why such a major wind project is not being built in Vermont.

The second answer to why the vote will be held next week is political. The surprise announcement is a trademark move by Shumlin, who is running for governor. It puts him in the lead on the issue of Vermont Yankee, much to the chagrin of other Democratic candidates, such as Sen. Douglas Racine, who noted that he had been calling for a vote "for some time."

Earlier, Gov. James Douglas had been calling for the Legislature to vote on the Yankee issue — mainly because he didn't believe the Legislature ought to be involved at all, and he wanted it to hand the issue off to the PSB. But when problems cropped up recently, Douglas changed his tune, urging the Legislature to hold off, sensing that if it were to vote now, it would vote no. So Shumlin seized the initiative this week, just as he did last year when he suddenly announced that the Legislature would take up the issue of gay marriage.

Legislators still undecided on Yankee may be annoyed by Shumlin's tactics. Sen. Randy Brock, a Republican from Franklin County, said he wanted more time to allow Entergy, the owner of Yankee, to get its act together. Sen. Kevin Mullin, Republican from Rutland County, said he would like to vote yes, but that there are "too many open questions." (He suggested wryly that perhaps the best answer would be to build a new nuclear plant.) Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie suggested Shumlin's move was "political theater."

But for the Senate to vote no next week would merely put the onus on Entergy to prove its case. Voting no would be telling Entergy nothing new. Entergy knows it has problems in Vermont, though according to the company's CEO, closing down the plant would not be a problem for the company's bottom line.

Keeping the plant open could well be a problem for Vermont's bottom line. The company has failed to show why putting Vermont Yankee into the hands of a debt-burdened spin-off company at the same time that radioactive water is polluting the nearby groundwater would not create costly burdens for ratepayers or taxpayers or both.

For the Senate to vote no would be to let Entergy and Vermont's utilities know that the state is serious about holding Entergy accountable.

http://www.timesargus.com/article/20100218/OPINION01/2180301/1021/OPINION01

[special ED]

i`m voting for shumlin in the democratic primary ,if you dont want him for govener then vote him in for a canadate

[MR32]

Dubie! Dubie! Dubie!

[Chris Santee]

Markowitz supports Shumlin's idea.

I haven't heard from Racine or Kittell.

[Chris Santee]

Just to be clear, Markowitz is a gubernatorial candidate
who supports Shumlin's plan to shut down Vermont Yankee
and disregard the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(and send another 600+ to the unemployment line).

and Sara Kittell is one of our Franklin County Senators,
Randy Brock being the other.

[MR32]

Don't trust Deb markowitz

[special ED]

yeah but shumlin cant win against dubie ,so vote fore him in the primary then we will get dubie for gov.

[fletchtb]

Leahy supporters did that a few years back when they voted for Fred Tuttle in the primary over Jack McMullin. Not that Jack McMullin would have ever won if he had won the primary.

[dw]

Frankly, I find it's time that Vt Yankee be held accountable for their flagrant disregard for Vermont's safety;  they have been totally irresponsible in their handling of communication with Douglas, the legislature, and Vermont residents.  I feel they have total disrespect for Vermont citizens and have an attitude of "we'll do what we want".   I am offended that they outright lied about the leaks (pipes underground) and then tried to gloss over it as a miscommunication.  I also find all of the "breakdowns" and "events" to be way beyond troubling.

I also find it interesting that none of you are concerned about the waste being stored next to the Connecticut River NOR that there isn't enough money to decommission the plant.  WHY would we want this company to stay in business?

At what cost are we willing to pay?  Where do we draw the line and say enough.

Is this a political issue OR is it more like Montpelier trying to force Vt Yankee's hand and finally getting them to take notice and stop delaying and procrastinating. (notice Douglas hasn't said anything . . . .  he doesn't seem too upset now does he!!!)

I, for one, do not trust Vt Yankee and don't want a company with their track record (in just the past year alone) to be running a nuclear power plant.  I'm a Vermonter - it angers me that they pull the "but what about the 600 workers that will be without work"?  That's blackmail - that's saying surely you won't jeopardize jobs for nuclear disaster. 

As far as Vermont being the only state that has legislative control over deciding the plant's license being renewed . . . WHY is that bad?  I say Vermont is, once again, progressive and forward thinking and had the guts (INITIALLY) to say we want to be able to hold you accountable.  Maybe other states need to follow suit.

And again, let's take politics out of it . . . . nuclear disasters/mismanagement will be an issue for us and for generations to come.  AND NOT just for Vermont but our neighbors, too.  Russian Roulette is not a game I want to play . . . and it seems it's being played everyday with Vermont Yankee.

THANK YOU legislature and the Governor for standing up to VT Yankee.  KEEP IT UP!

[Chris Santee]

dw,
You touched on a lot, let me start with this for now:
You stated "I am offended that they outright lied about the leaks (pipes underground) and then tried to gloss over it as a miscommunication".
I too am appalled over this conduct and have been researching the possibilty of perjury charges being brought against the individuals.
I have become very frustrated at hearing over and over again, "Perjury is hard to prove".
This is not over yet and you will be hearing about it in the news.

I'll touch on the other issues when I have some more time.
You've asked some great questions.

[YouAnnMos]

Just to be clear, Markowitz is a gubernatorial candidate
who supports Shumlin's plan to shut down Vermont Yankee
and disregard the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(and send another 600+ to the unemployment line).

and Sara Kittell is one of our Franklin County Senators,
Randy Brock being the other.

So, let's see how others voted:
Shumlin of Putney - Nay
Borck    of Swanton - Nay
Kittell    of Fairfield   - Nay

Hummm...  Both Republicans and Democrats voted -- NO  -- Hummm

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/rcdetail.cfm?Session=2010&RollCallID=154